Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always
will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth
had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do
about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming
since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a
warming of about 0.40ºC over the same time period. Many scientists
believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island
effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signalhas been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature
on Earth would be -18ºC rather than the equable +15ºC that has
nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas,
responsible for ~26% (8ºC) of the total greenhouse effect (33ºC), of
which in turn at most 25% (~2ºC) can be attributed to carbon dioxide
contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70%
of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted asthe main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and
exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will
deliver no significant cooling (less than .02ºC by 2050, assuming that
all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific
basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin,
calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion
that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a
dangerous rate.

The reality is that almostevery aspect ofclimate science is the subject of vigorous debate.
Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed
declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused
warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach
to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since
1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2
of 8% since 1995. Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-2ºC/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for
the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many
times in the recent geological past. Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in
pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by
several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley &
Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a
statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past
climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were
unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 6ºC over the next 100 years.

Facts 5 A 2ºC change would be well within previous
natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since
time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution.
Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is
distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional
human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 1ºC. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including
especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration. Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time
scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with
concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible
radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are
known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.8ºC
rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar
change. Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice aroundAntarctica
attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are
just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the
early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during
earlier times.Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to
place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm
(2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for
environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr
occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of
human-influenced increase. Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in
storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of
the climate system.

Comments

There are a lot of typographical errors in the text that need fixing, like getting degrees muddled up eg -180o C .. cant do it on my computer, but all the temperatures need checking and corrected where required. Well done Prof Carter, Happy New Year from Allano.

The degree° symbol can be had by holding 'alt' then 0176 on the keypad.

The statement "(though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback)." is confusing. It is not clear whether this means a feedback with H2O as posited by the alarmist community, or whether it has a direct forcing, which will be true in the absence of condensing H2O. I would just take the statement out myself, because CO2 is utterly overwhelmed by H2O when the radiative work of gases is shifted directly to SB radiation of condensed H2O droplets at altitude, which bypasses most GHGs in the atmosphere. This is the mechanism in control of regulating temperatures. If CO2 causes more warming (and it will), H2O simply condenses and radiates more and at a higher altitude and area, overriding the difference. CO2 is nearly meaningless in the presence of condensing H2O.

The degree° symbol can be had by holding 'alt' then 0176 on the keypad.

The statement "(though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback)." is confusing. It is not clear whether this means a feedback with H2O as posited by the alarmist community, or whether it has a direct forcing, which will be true in the absence of condensing H2O. I would just take the statement out myself, because CO2 is utterly overwhelmed by H2O when the radiative work of gases is shifted directly to SB radiation of condensed H2O droplets at altitude, which bypasses most GHGs in the atmosphere. This is the mechanism in control of regulating temperatures. If CO2 causes more warming (and it will), H2O simply condenses and radiates more and at a higher altitude and area, overriding the difference. CO2 is nearly meaningless in the presence of condensing H2O, the H2O will never even notice.

Point 4. The 33 degree claim seems to originate with Hansen. It ignores any effect of the Earth's atmosphere acting as an insulating blanket. This is clearly a major factor in creating our balmy 15 deg C. What is the real impact of GHG's relative to the insulating effect of an atmosphere ?

Further on "fact" 4.1. What would be the temperature of a cold Earth like planet with no atmosphere?

2. What would be the effect of adding:a) A dense, radiation transparent atmosphere?b) A 5000 degree C molten core beneath a mantle?c) 70% cover by high albedo clouds in the atmosphere?d) Weather, dominated by convective and latent heat transfer?

AGT warming would be negligible in the tropics, greatest at the poles. This reduced contrast and gradient would REDUDE stormines, not increase it. Cooling has caused and will cause most surges in severe weather.

What a laugh ... I've just been banned from the physics forum for posting this. Seems like they are BIG Hansen fans.

1. What would be the temperature of a cold Earth like planet with no atmosphere?

2. What would be the effect of adding:a) A dense, radiation transparent atmosphere?b) A 5000 degree C molten core beneath a mantle?c) 70% cover by high albedo clouds in the atmosphere?d) Weather, dominated by convective and latent heat transfer?

Good Morning, I'm the author of an italian Blog - The Changing Planet. I think that the global warming is unequivocal. NASA has published recently this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9pXFkPTomCI

The quantitative comparison between the changes in current and historical data indicates that the paleoclimate and ongoing changes represent a new occurrence with respect to what is known relative to the period before the industrial era. Over the past 150 years, the global surface temperature of our planet has increased by a value between 0.6 and 0.8 ° C

A 2 degree change in average global mean temp is a huge deal , it doesnt mean local temperatures go up by 2 degrees , understanding weather systems and climate is very hard for a layperson , especially when people prey on ignorance , yes climate always changes , the reason for the "HYPE" and "hysteria" is that the RATE of change is increasing , life isn't some linear graph , like when you say water vapour is a greenhouse gas , yes yes it is , and therefore we shouldn't worry about CO2 is misleading , and disingenious , (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback) . I have yet to observe a "diminshingly" mild positive feedback loop , That would in fact be a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP !!!! (which it's not ) . Learn the meaning of WORDS !!!

The Greenhouse effect is what saves us from freezing and raises the earth's temperature by ~33ºC.Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (8ºC) of the total greenhouse effect (33ºC), of which in turn at most 25% (~2ºC) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity.

I would hardly call Dr Bob Carter a "lay person."

As to the rate of change increasing....Oh? Really? The same rate of warming can be seen for the periods 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. See:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/a-primer-for-disproving-ipcc%E2%80%99s-theory-of-man-made-global-warming-using-observed-temperature-data/

Research also the saturated effect of CO2; eg -http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/physicist-co2-greenhouse-effect-is.html

Perhaps you should think before you open your mouth and hit the CAPS KEY!

Yes I did use the caps i have still yet to find a diminshinly mild positive feedback loop can you explain further as this seems to be as oxymoronic as "thunderous silence" . you never addressed this .

Robert Merlin "Bob" Carter is a notable Australian climate change skeptic. Carter was a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist, but is currently retired from academic roles.

Ok so not a meteorologist , but an expert in all things geological , but not an expert in weather or climate . Maybe i should look to a geologist for info concerning GEOLOGY , not climate . The same way i would not ask anastrophysicist about cancer , As for the 2nd link

The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.

This rings fundamentally false to me , as it states beyond certain ( non defined) limits an increase in proportion of certain gases have no effect , without explaining WHY ,

Plus looking at two 30 year periods in the last hundred years might not show anything statistically significant , with respect to climate over eons , the world is not linear relationships

B

While it is not possible to calculate the actual proportion of energy returning to the earth via these very low frequency photons passing through a transparent atmosphere

Refering to the inability(of scientist) to quantify the ability of the atmosphere to trap terrestrial radiation ,

"As also shown by Miskolczi and others using different methods, Dr. Nicol finds that the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is already saturated at present atmospheric levels and that future emissions will not affect temperature."

the greenhouse effect is saturated ?!?, while CO2 in the atmosphere is not saturated

Bob Carter is certainly a geologist and not a climatologist or meteorologist.

It is significant that geologists, about 2 centuries ago, first discovered the FACT that climate was changeable when they recognised the ice-age land forms of Europe. Indeed the introductory part of any geology course stresses the role of climate in forming sedimentary rocks.

Carter, himself, has studied the coral rocks in Queensland that are only a few thousand years old and are now well above the present sea level.

The study of sediments in the great lakes of the African Rift Valley also provides records of widely fluctuating rainfall, with water levels varying through hundreds of metres in the last few thousand years. Although they do not overlap in latitude, Lakes Malawi and Tanganyika showed similar behaviour, falling in the latter half of the 19th Century, reaching a low in the early 20th Century and the rising again until the 1960s.

"If you deride a world recognised scientist like Professor Bob Carter, but do it behind the curtain of anonymity, you are not an anonymous person but are in fact an anonyMOUSE (sic)"

Ok ok let's leave my lack of "bravery" or lack thereof out of it , I pointed out that a geologist is not a meteorologist , he is of course talking about things outside his specialty , which was of course my point . Any malice towards Prof.Bob Carter is being projected by you ,

""an expert in all things geological , but not an expert in weather or climate"

HUH?

Weather is what happens daily, but CLIMATE is what happens over a longer period.

And what do geologists do?

Study the longer period.

What part of that do you not understand?

I think you need to do a little more study. Your understanding level is not great.

But thanks for your comments anyway. (Mr Cowardly Mouse.)"

I understand the subtle difference between the study of rocks and the study of the atmosphere ,I understand your reasoning goes something like this

1 Prof Carter is educated in geology2 Geological activity occurs over long periods of time 3 Climate is measured over long periods of timetherefore Prof Carter is educated in climate.

Also Main point from first post which you have to yet to address , explain a "mild diminishly positive feedback loop" , I may be ignorant but this seems to be nonsensical . It almost seems like the words "mild" and "diminishing" are words put in there to distort the readers perception .

BTW thanks i do intended to FURTHER my studies , can you please be more specific about the shortcomings of my "understanding level" ?

If there is something I'm not understanding , please explain it to me , I like hearing why I'm wrong and learning from it , It is the best way to grow intellectually .

Paleoclimatology (in British spelling, palaeoclimatology) is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth.1 Prof Carter is educated in Paleoclimatology2 Paleoclimatological activity occurs over lthe entire history of Earth.

How do we know about ancient climate?From Earth’s geological history as preserved in sedimentary rocks.A major part of geological study is concerned with unravelling the Earth’s past, a deep time environmental record based upon information contained in ancient sediments and sedimentary rocks like mudstone, sandstone and limestone. Australia has amongst the oldest sedimentary rocks in the world, which date from approximately 3.5 billion years ago, a period called the Archaean. Geologists have assembled an environmental and climatic record based on the study of these and younger sedimentary rocks, though the older parts of this record are understandably fragmentary.The reconstructed record suggests that for about the last 2 billion years the Earth has had an atmosphere and oceans similar in physical and chemical properties to (though not identical with) modern counterparts, with organised multi-cellular life also present for the last 600 million years.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks ,Forecast the Facts said"Heartland’s scientifically and morally indefensible advocacy on smoking is no surprise given that a significant portion of its funding has come from tobacco companies. In the past two years, Altria and Reynolds American contributed $90,000 and $110,000 respectively."

let's for arguments sake see if any oil companies "donate" to this institute

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil. "

Alright but it's not like these donations directly benefit the donors , right ? wrong

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.

ok ok , this is all coincidental , Prof Bob Carter is also a founding member of New Zealand Climate Science Coalition , which sounds legit ,It's not like they are accepting money from disreputable thinktanks right ?

ok ok but what is the NZ Climate Science Coalitions stated aims ? "represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change".

ok sounds noble , inform and educate people with facts , I can't argue with what they stated is their aims .

"In March 2008, the New Zealand Listener reported that Owen McShane and Bryan Leyland and the Coalition were lobbying business journalists to cover their questioning of climate change science in order to create an illusion of greater disagreement over the science than actually exists."

It appears they are trying to misrepresent what experts actually think , But they aren't trying to get rid of data that doesn't support their point of veiw , oh

"In August 2010, the Coalition commenced legal action against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, asking the High Court to invalidate its official temperature record, to prevent it using the temperature record when advising Government and to require the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to produce a "full and accurate" temperature record. In 2012, the High Court declined all claims and ruled that the Coalition pay NIWA's costs. In response to the ruling, the Coalition liquidated the trust fund it administered to handle the court case, in an attempt to avoid financial liability"

So while trying to keep an open mind , the very least that can be said is Prof. Bob Carter has been involved in organisations who have appeared to hide their true motivations And whose scientific opinions seem to benefit their large donors , which could be argued is a conflict of interests or atleast apparent conflict of interest ,

"In 2012, The Economist called Heartland “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change.” The New York Times called us “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.” We also address other environmental issues including renewable portfolio standards (RPS), clean air standards, smart drilling and hydraulic fracturing, sustainable development, food safety, and more."

Note the praise isn't from a science publication , This is a quote about them in Nature

“Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations… . makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading. … Many climate skeptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters"

Many climate skeptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth

The ClimateGate CRU seem to disregard scientific data and "homogenise" it so that it conforms with their political aims. Naughty, Naughty!

When your attacks on Bob Carter's qualifications are shot down in flames you move on to try to discredit him in whatever method you scurrilously can.

"Heartland Reply to Our Critics

There have been numerous false and malicious claims that The Heartland Institute is a front for the energy industry and is funded by "the Koch brothers." These statements are often made with full knowledge they are untrue; in some cases they are made without such knowledge.

With this notice, the reader is informed he/she will have no defense of "innocent mistake" made because of lack of knowledge and may have legal liability for defamation.

World Leaders are advocating the implementation of the Climate change plan, as Climate change poses a very real and direct threat to the survival of all Mankind.An interesting and highly debateable hypothesis, considering Scientists have calculated the Earth being over 4.543 Billion years old.Then around the year 1724, Man invents the Thermometer, that’s a mere 291 years ago, then around 1850 Man starts to record a Methodical Thermometer based record of Global Temperatures, that’s a mere 165 years ago.In 4.543 Billion years many changes have occurred, the Ice age, Dinosaur extinction, Continents submerge and other emerge; Races of people are born and die out, all this as part of the Natural evolvement of the Earth.Now we have World Leaders telling us we have to change our thinking on Climate change, or we will all be Doomed, are they trying to distract us from the real threat of extinction? Terrorism and Man’s Inhumanity to Man.The Great Architect of the Universe must be disgusted to see his 4.543 Billion years plan destroyed in a mere pathetic few years of Mans existence.Global Warming will not lead to the demise of Mankind, Terrorism and Man’s Inhumanity to Man will wipe out all life sooner than Global Warming.Just to be on the safe side, turn out your lights when you leave the room, and turn off your air conditioner if not required, in the 4.543 Billion year plan your actions could be vital to our existence.

America has well over 100 doppler radars, 160 i think, each is "on" all the time, a home microwave emits 1000 watts, a doppler radar emits 450,000 watts according to NOAA. (throw a few more OZONES on the barbie!)Surely that is a misprint! The microwave cone picks up "scatter" which is another term for you and i, some of them target 300 kilometers, those waves go through virtually anything! not very nice of them and we have to drink that water! YUK we don't need any more wify!

When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"

It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.

Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be duplicated, either by the same researcher or by someone else working independently. Reproducing an experiment is called replicating it. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

Sir Henry Fraser has an impressive CV.
Barbados' newest knight, retired university professor, Dr. Henry Fraser, received the Accolade of Knight of St. Andrew, in the 2014 Independence Day Hours. Sir Henry Fraser was named as a result of The Knighthood of St. Andrew being bestowed on him for his outstanding contribution to the medical profession and representation of Barbadian culture, especially in the area of its architectural history.Sir Henry, a medical practitioner by profession, has worked for many years as a lecturer in medicine at the University of the West Indies and now serves as an Independent Senator in the Barbados Parliament where he has gained an outstanding reputation for his work on the historic treasures of Barbados.

He has received a plethora of other awards, including the UWI’s Pelican Award, Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International and the Gold Crown of Merit (GCM) in the Barbados Honours of 1992.